A question for christians accepting of homosexuality

[Rapscallion]

Well, that's between the people in the marriage, isn't it? Why should it be the church's business if the couple has an "open" relagionship?

Well, for me that's the whole point of a marriage (to be faithful to each other), but the point of a church is to tell people what to do.

Different people have different opinions. As long as people aren't hurt, I'm fairly easy about it.

Rapscallion

[Ghel]

Well, for me that's the whole point of a marriage (to be faithful to each other), but the point of a church is to tell people what to do.

In general, I agree. In modern times, even the church doesn't require a dissolution of marriage because of a single case of infidelity, as far as I'm aware.

This thread has morphed from the original topic, and since we're talking more about marriage now, I'd like to throw out what I think is a general definition of marriage. I hope that it's a definition that we can all agree on.

Marriage is a legal and social contract between two consenting adults. Social and cultural aspects may vary greatly, but legal aspects include rights to visit one's spouse in the hospital, automatic parenthood of the other's children born or adopted during the marriage, and the right to be buried next to each other.

I think folks on both sides of the gay marriage debate need to understand a few things about marriage that I've included in the definition. Marriage is NOT inherently religious. It was included in the Old Testament because, at the time, church and state were the same thing. Legalizing same-sex marriage will not force any church to perform same-sex marriages. They have the right to refuse to marry any couple for any reason, and that will not change.

[Kheldarson]

Well, that's between the people in the marriage, isn't it? Why should it be the church's business if the couple has an "open" relagionship?


This kind of made sense when the church was founded and people only lived 40-50 years. Now that people live twice that long, it's even more horrible to force people to stay in an unhappy marriage their entire lives.


Are you saying that couples that have made the conscious choice not to have children shouldn't be allowed to marry?

Granted, you're free to believe whatever you like in the privacy of your own mind. It's just when you or your church tries to legislate based on your beliefs and force them on the rest of the country that there's a problem.

First, I'm going to say that personally I believe that we should have a split between the sacrament of marriage and civil unions. I have no problem with the idea of the state saying that two people can legally join their assets and be legally tied together no matter what gender. I think that churches should determine what constitutes a sacramental marriage within their community. I'm Catholic, therefore, the tenants of the Church are what I adhere to. Can't be Catholic and disagree on major doctrine, ya know?

As for your other statements, one, the sacrament of marriage is the Church's business as it's a sacrament. This is a Big Deal thing. Marriage in Chuch Tradition is symbolic of the Holy Trinity.

Two, why is it hard to imagine people being willing to stay together for as long as they live anyway? It's called commitment. It's called compromise. God doesn't give up on you or your marriage covenant, why should you? On the other hand, there is the annulment process. But you have to prove that the basic tenants of marriage have been violated.

Three, I'm going to throw that one back to my first statement. I'm not a priest. I'm not the pope. And I'm not God. If a priest says that they're fine to marry in Catholic ceremony, then that's fine with me. I can only tell you my understanding of what I've read and been taught.

Which comes to your last point. I don't agree with legislation on moral topics as is, particularly at a federal level. I don't think it's right for the Church to tell the state who they can consider a couple for tax and legal purposes, but I don't think it's right for the state to tell the Church whom they have to unite in a religious ceremony.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

First, I'm going to say that personally I believe that we should have a split between the sacrament of marriage and civil unions. I have no problem with the idea of the state saying that two people can legally join their assets and be legally tied together no matter what gender. I think that churches should determine what constitutes a sacramental marriage within their community. I'm Catholic, therefore, the tenants of the Church are what I adhere to. Can't be Catholic and disagree on major doctrine, ya know?

As for your other statements, one, the sacrament of marriage is the Church's business as it's a sacrament. This is a Big Deal thing. Marriage in Chuch Tradition is symbolic of the Holy Trinity.

Two, why is it hard to imagine people being willing to stay together for as long as they live anyway? It's called commitment. It's called compromise. God doesn't give up on you or your marriage covenant, why should you? On the other hand, there is the annulment process. But you have to prove that the basic tenants of marriage have been violated.

Three, I'm going to throw that one back to my first statement. I'm not a priest. I'm not the pope. And I'm not God. If a priest says that they're fine to marry in Catholic ceremony, then that's fine with me. I can only tell you my understanding of what I've read and been taught.

Which comes to your last point. I don't agree with legislation on moral topics as is, particularly at a federal level. I don't think it's right for the Church to tell the state who they can consider a couple for tax and legal purposes, but I don't think it's right for the state to tell the Church whom they have to unite in a religious ceremony.

Where to start? hmmmm...

Well, first of all, no one's saying there shouldn't be a split between what a church holds to be a sacrament (or equivalent) and what the law defines as a marriage/civil union etc. No one's trying to legislate your religion in the slightest, you can believe whatever you want (as a person, community or religion en masse). Same sex marriage simply means the extension of the legal term marriage to allow for same sex couples or the elevation of civil unions to exact equivalency to marriage. However, the second is somewhat tarred by the oft-proven 'separate = unequal' scenario, and thus the first method is far better. Still, this only effects the legal definition of marriage, not it's religious status.

Second, it's very easy to believe that people won't be able to live together for the rest of their lives. People make mistakes, people change, but most of all, people turn out to be far different than they at first seemed to be. In each case, to force either party to remain together despite incompatibility is nothing short of cruel. Compromise isn't always possible, nor does it always solve the problems it's applied to. As for unquestioning/blind commitment... it has little or no value to those for whom it isn't a virtue.

Okay, so you're not willing to make theological decisions for yourself, that's cool, if it works for you. Still, there's no reason why those religious decisions should impact other people's legal status/horizon. To do so (i.e. disallowing same-sex marriage for all because you don't like it) is, if anything, worse than any meddling with your religious views (Again, that's not what's happening at all. The only definition in dispute is a legal definition).

Lastly, for the four millionth time, we AREN'T telling your church what to do! Not one same-sex marriage law on the books anywhere forces any church in any way to do or not do anything. It simply allows individuals to enter into a legal contract. The involvement of a church is not in any way required for the legal process. When one is involved, it's because that church voluntarily chose to allow it based on their own creed, just like any other. The ceremony isn't touched, the bible isn't touched, you're beliefs aren't touched.

Moreover, there's hardly a legal dispute in history that can't be seen as a moral debate. Is it right or wrong to:

Tax rug makers?
Allow the registered purchase of automatic weapons?
Ban books about communism?
Arm police officers?

All of the above *could* be seen as a right/wrong decision. But the truth of it is that the grand majority of the time such values are tacked on afterward. Laws either expressly allow or expressly forbid certain actions. To allow is not necessarily to advocate, nor is to forbid necessarily to condemn. Morality remains individual, and those things proven to cause unacceptable threat to life, property, liberty or limb are avoided.

[Kheldarson]

Actually, my religious conviction is based on my research and study. So it's not blind faith or acceptance. But that's really neither here nor there since I doubt anybody here will take that one on blind faith either.


As to your first point, I believe I have said a couple of times I have no problem with same sex civil unions. None. Frankly the legal side of things is about taxes and I don't really care about tax law at all as long as it's fair for everybody. Including partner status.

Next point, while yes, it is easy to believe that people won't spend the rest of their lives together, I also do not understand this sudden disbelief in people being able to spend the rest of their lives together. The point of dating/courtship/betrothal is supposed to be finding out if you're compatible enough to spend the rest of your lives together. There's not supposed to be a rush to get married. Because, yeah, if you are in particular religious groups, there is an expectation that you will remain in the covenant of marriage and stick to your vows.

And finally, again, I do not believe that the state or the church should be able to make decisions about the other's realm (political vs. moral/social). But at the same time, it is wrong to say that the Church cannot be allowed to make declarations against certain things. Part of the problem is terminology. Marriage versus civil union. The other problem is the fact that any Catholic within an extramarital relationship is considered in a state of sin and not within communion with the Church body. And the Church, particularly in the United States and other first-world countries, is seeing an increasing problem on that side of things. So She speaks out against anything that would encourage it.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

And finally, again, I do not believe that the state or the church should be able to make decisions about the other's realm (political vs. moral/social). But at the same time, it is wrong to say that the Church cannot be allowed to make declarations against certain things. Part of the problem is terminology. Marriage versus civil union. The other problem is the fact that any Catholic within an extramarital relationship is considered in a state of sin and not within communion with the Church body. And the Church, particularly in the United States and other first-world countries, is seeing an increasing problem on that side of things. So She speaks out against anything that would encourage it.

And again, you're religious beliefs aren't on the table here. If same-sex marriage is legalized, you aren't required to change your beliefs or practices in any way. There's a fine line between expressing an opinion, and actively seeking to effect lawmaking based on that opinion. When a church influences the passing or repealing of a law based on their dogma, they are forcing their beliefs on other people. Civil unions as of now are woefully inferior to marriage, and by the simple fact of being separate, the two will never be equal. In order to provide the same rights to same-sex couples, marriage as a legal contract must be available for them. Again, this is marriage as a legal contract and NOT marriage as a religious ceremony/belief.

By allowing the legal union of two persons (aka marriage) to include same sex couples, said couples are elevated to legal equality in the eyes of the law. To prevent or reverse this is to make them unequal. Since the religious definition of marriage is not effected, there is no valid religious basis for preventing such a law from being passed.

Your problem seems to be that you can't tell the difference between marriage, the legal contract, and marriage, the religious practice. While similar in many ways, the two are separate, individual constructs. Changing one doesn't change the other unless either:

A: A church decides to change their views to match the law.
or
B: A government chooses to legislate based on a church.

B is against the rules in the U.S.A. and A is against the rules in most religions. Therefore, doing either is a breech of their respective rules.

I urge you to read this one carefully, and point out any point on which you think I'm wrong specifically. The points are:

1: Legal and religious marriage are separate constructs.
2: A disparity or change in either construct does not mandate a change in the other.
3: Laws legalizing same-sex marriage change legal marriage ONLY.
4: If the above are true, religion has no right to affect said laws.

[Kheldarson]

But the initial question of this thread was about Christians and accepting homosexuality. Ergo, this thread, from what I understood about it, was how Christians can or cannot accept homosexuality based on what is stated in the Bible in the Old Testament. Ergo, my religious beliefs are on the table in this discussion.

Because again. I agree. Allowing civil unions in state law has no effect on my religion as long as the state doesn't require my church, or any other church, to have to recognize said unions.

I have just been stating that according to the definition of marriage and the sacrament of matrimony in the Church, my chosen faith, there are issues with homosexual marriage.

[ladyneeva]

So only religious couples get to use the term married? Thats odd, I haven't seen a single thing about heterosexual non-Christian or even non-religious couples being forbidden to use that term.

[Kheldarson]

Sure, why not? Seperate the two concepts entirely. Have a civil union ceremony with the justice of the peace one day, and a religious marital ceremony the next. Or same day just later and in a different place. Then we all know what we're talking about and not confusing political judgement and religious judgement.

[KabeRinnaul]

One major issue that's been central for the last page or two of this thread is the difference between a civil union and a marriage. I think that really, the problem here is one of definitions. I'm going to go ahead and lay out exactly what Kheldarson means by the terms she's using.

Civil Union: A legal/social contract between two people that impacts taxation, inheritance, and legal family ties, etc. Essentially, a marriage by law.

Marriage: A religious ceremony and sacrament where two people swear their devotion to one another witnessed by their church and God. A marriage by the church.

What the fight has been about, really, hasn't been the definition of Marriage (though that is a major side point), but the definition of 'civil union'. Now, I'll go ahead and say that my beliefs are very similar to Kheldarson's, but the major difference is I wasn't raised Catholic like her, so I don't know all the existing dogma as well as she does. Instead, I try to work these things out for myself.

Now, as for the argument. Yes, a Law-Marriage as it stands has a great many benefits that a Civil Union does not. They are separate and horribly unequal, and that's fair to no one. But I don't favor a Civil Union being one thing and a Law-Marriage being another thing. I favor a Civil Union being the only form of legal "marriage" contract, and a Law-Marriage being nothing. I think the legal and religious sides ought to be entirely divorced (pun unintended) from one another.

If two people want to have a relationship right in the eyes of their God and in the name of tradition, they get married. Regardless of faith or sex.

If they want to be legally declared a couple and get special tax rules, medical power of attorney for one another, and a preferred place in inheritance, they get a civil union. Again, regardless of faith or sex.

And by that first point, I don't mean that anybody should get to be married in any church. Whether or not a church marries you is up to the rules of the church and the inclinations of the priest, etc. I just mean that the term "marriage" shouldn't be solely the domain of heterosexual Christians.

[ladyneeva]

Marriage stopped being a religious concept ages ago... now the word has come to mean any two things that are seen as being linked together. Trying to pass legislation to change the definition of the word marriage into meaning that ONLY Christians may use it would be as big of a joke as that guy that tried to get support for a measure banning divorce. The majority of people simply do not consider there to be any difference at all between a state sanctioned marriage and a church sanctioned marriage.

In fact, the only time anyone, anywhere, EVER makes a distinction between marriage as a religious sacrament and marriage as a legal contract is when they are trying to prevent homosexuals from engaging in the latter by claiming marriage is only the former.

[Ree]

In fact, the only time anyone, anywhere, EVER makes a distinction between marriage as a religious sacrament and marriage as a legal contract is when they are trying to prevent homosexuals from engaging in the latter by claiming marriage is only the former.

Ummm...nothing like speaking for everyone on something. That's a pretty broad statement there.
You might want to rephrase a bit so you aren't putting your own words into other's mouths.

[Kheldarson]

Marriage stopped being a religious concept ages ago... now the word has come to mean any two things that are seen as being linked together. Trying to pass legislation to change the definition of the word marriage into meaning that ONLY Christians may use it would be as big of a joke as that guy that tried to get support for a measure banning divorce. The majority of people simply do not consider there to be any difference at all between a state sanctioned marriage and a church sanctioned marriage.

In fact, the only time anyone, anywhere, EVER makes a distinction between marriage as a religious sacrament and marriage as a legal contract is when they are trying to prevent homosexuals from engaging in the latter by claiming marriage is only the former.

Actually, I'd have to disagree. First of all, again, I don't care if the government wants to allow you and your dog to claim legal rights on each other, that is their prerogative. Although that would be a little weird and excuse my hyperbole there. But still. Point remains. My political belief is that first, the federal government needs to get out of the marriage discussion and let states determine what constitutes a legal union.

Second, I'd disagree on marriage being a non-connotative word. Part of why we have all the arguments is because of word choice. Marriage is seen primarily as a religious ceremony, particularly by those of a religious nature/community/bent. Which happens to be a fair amount of the population, particularly the population that you want to stop fighting against the idea of legal unions.

So change the language. The end goal is to get the same legal rights for homosexual couples as heterosexual couples. So use terms that have an undisputed legal connotation. Civil union. Legal union. Union. Joining. Anything but marriage. This makes it clear on what exactly you are talking about and causes a distinction between the legal issues and the religious issues.

And an interesting personal anecdote on your last point. My parents were married twice. The first marriage was a legal ceremony in front of the Justice of the Peace. The second was a couple months later in front of a priest. This was because they were married in Germany, where it is my understanding that since the Reformation, the practice has been to separate the two types of marriages. The only one that is necessary for the government is the legal union in front of the judge. The other is optional for legal purposes, but important if you are even remotely religious, and the church you belong to determines if you can get married in its ceremony or not. This would be my end goal for the US. However, in order to do so, again, you have to separate the two concepts. One way to do so is to make a distinction between the two by using different terms.

[KabeRinnaul]

Marriage stopped being a religious concept ages ago... now the word has come to mean any two things that are seen as being linked together.

Not to the majority of people. I think that if you took a poll on what people thought of when the word "marriage" was mentioned, you're get about 99% describing a ceremony in a church and performed by a priest, with the last 1% being split between talk of the legal matters involved and the very general definition you just used.

Trying to pass legislation to change the definition of the word marriage into meaning that ONLY Christians may use it would be as big of a joke as that guy that tried to get support for a measure banning divorce.

Yes, it would be. Which I why I never said that. In fact, I said the literal opposite of that. Here's what I said, emphasis added: "I just mean that the term 'marriage' shouldn't be solely the domain of heterosexual Christians."

The majority of people simply do not consider there to be any difference at all between a state sanctioned marriage and a church sanctioned marriage.

Yes. That's the problem, actually. So long as we continue to consider Law-Marriage and Church-Marriage the same thing, allowing homosexuals the same rights as everyone else in this area will be a difficult uphill battle. As it stands, any time someone talks about giving homosexuals equal legal marriage rights, it gets wrapped up in the religious debate on homosexuality (like the one this thread was started about).

And once that happens, the crazy choir gets started and nothing useful can be discussed over their incessant panicked screeching and Leviticus quotes. The entire goal I have in dividing the two is to cut the legs out from under that entire argument.

In fact, the only time anyone, anywhere, EVER makes a distinction between marriage as a religious sacrament and marriage as a legal contract is when they are trying to prevent homosexuals from engaging in the latter by claiming marriage is only the former.

Er, no. You've gotten my whole end goal backwards. I'm claiming that marriage is only a religious sacrament because a religious sacrament should be legally meaningless. I don't want only straight people or Christians to be married. I don't care who gets married by their own faiths. What I want is for "because we're married" to have as much legal standing as "because my pet dragon says so."

I'm dividing the two not because I want to deny homosexuals a legal marriage, but instead because I want everyone to have a civil union. The entire thing is, admittedly, just semantics. There are only two reasons I have for distinguishing between the two: to be able to explicitly state the difference in debates, and to remove the religious objections from the debate in the mind of the public.

[jackfaire]

I never thought of Marriage as a religious thing nor did I think it ever was.

I always thought it was more, "Hmmm how do we stop two men from fighting over the same girl? I know create a union that is permanent and binding so as to remove the reason for fighting."

Boom you have marriage.